On Saturday 09 February 2008 23:50:17 Marcel Holtmann wrote:<snip>> > > It makes no difference if you> > > distribute the GPL library with it or not.> >> > If you do not distribute the GPL library, the library is simply being> > used in the intended, ordinary way. You do not need to agree to, nor can> > you violate, the GPL simply by using a work in its ordinary intended way.> >> > If the application contains insufficient copyrightable expression from> > the library to be considered a derivative work (and purely functional> > things do not count), then it cannot be a derivative work. The library is> > not being copied or distributed. So how can its copyright be infringed?>> go ahead and create an application that uses a GPL only library. Then> ask a lawyer if it is okay to distribute your application in binary only> form without making the source code available (according to the GPL).>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL>> Regards>> Marcel

In the US, at least, the belief that "Linking", in *ANY* form, with a GPL library creates a derivative work, is fallacious. Were I to create an application that uses, say, GTK for the interface the protected expression is my "unique and creative" use of the GTK API for creating the specific interface and any other code I have written using the API. I hold sole license to the copyright on that code and am able to license said code under the specific license of my choice.

Why? Because the pre-processor is what is including any GPL'd code in my application and expanding any macros. That is a purely mechanical process and hence the output is not able to be separately copyrighted - if it could be, then the copyright would be held by the *COMPILER*, and I am *NOT* bound by the license on that code. The same applies if GPL'd code is included in my application during the linking process. QED: The "Linking" argument used by most people is wholly fallacious in at least one major country - and if I'm not mistaken, the output from an automated process is similarly not considered as carrying a separate copyright in all nations that are signatories of or follow the Bern Convention.

(And yes, this also applies to some GPL'd tools that RMS extended "GPL Exemptions" to - such as "Bison". There is, generally, no need for such an exemption, because the process by which the GPL'd code is included in the final binary is wholly mechanical.)

DRHPS: The above information is a very condensed form of the result of several past conversations on this list about copyright law and the GPL as well as my own, private discussions with lawyers. I'm being lazy here and not searching various archives of LKML to give pointers to the past discussions.

-- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.